Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Doctorates (PhD or ThD?)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Kevin Graham" <kevlds AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Doctorates (PhD or ThD?)
  • Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 11:14:10 +0000

Good morning Charles,

== I appreciate the fact that you recognize that all readers, exegetes if you will come with assumptions (what I prefer to call presoppositions). But I fail to see why "theological" assumptions are bad and other presuppositions are okay. After all the Bible is a religious document, dare we say a theological document.

But whose theology is being represented? That is the great battle amongst scholars from all Judeo-Christian faiths. Which only reinforces my point, I think, that setting theological confines as to what the Bible can and cannot say, is a bad way of approaching it.

== It seems to me that the human authors of Scripture themselves come with theological presuppositions. For example, in the OT the authors typically assume that God has a covenantal relationship with Israel.

Sure, but the Bible, it is argued, is a historical document. It must therefore be approached as if it is a historical document written by many different authors. The theological presupposition I have problems with, are those such as the one expressed here recently. "They demanded I call Yahweh a liar!" This one left em scratching my head. I gather from this that someone was learning something in Hebrew class that contradicted one or many of his theological presuppositions, and the only way he knew to express his dilemma was to say it required that he call God a liar.

== I would also add that all presuppositions, not just theological ones, in one way or the other "sets the limits as to what a scripture can and cannot say. For example, if one comes to the Torah with a Documentary Hypothesis presupposition, then the statements in Torah which lay claim to Mosaic authorship are discounted.

But this is discounted, first and foremost, by the fact that Deuteronomy presents us with Moses' obituary. So we know beyond a doubt that Moses didn't write this much of it, so the burden of proof rests on those who insist Moses wrote all of it. I this undermines "tradition" moreso than theology, I think. The thesis that Moses authored the entire book is also belied by the fact that Deuteronomy, which was miraculously (and conveniently I might add) "discovered" by Josiahn temple priests, and that it contradicts many of the things taught in subsequent books of Moses, and happens to support teh reforming ideas of Josiah. It isn't some devious atheistic plot to throw a wrench into the traditional (mis)understanding of the OT authorship. I am a Christian. I can accept the Bible for what it is. It doesn't hinder my theology in the slightest to know that tradition sometimes gets it wrong.

== By the way, since you appeal to the OT view of God then you might note how many times the words "Thus says the Lord" the Word of the Lord," etc. appear. Does this not reflect a presupposition and understanding of the text which is divine in origin. And if one rejects this, then these and similar statements cannot be taken at face value.

All this does is prove that the author is citing the Lord trhough his own human, and fallible means. God did not write the Bible or else he never would have used humans to begin with. Jer 8:8 makes it clear that scribes have corrupted the law. God commisions men to write his law, but he doesn't strike them down with temporary infallibility in the process.

== "Evangelical seminaries have an agenda so to speak." True enough. Evangelical seminaries such as DTS often clearly and specifically identify their mission. They will tell you why they believe they exist. Yes, Evangelicals do often "wear their biases on their sleeves." That is they don't hide it. Personally, I think that it is much more honest than institutions which speak on an inclusive intellectual environment where all manner of belief systems are welcomed accept for conservative Evangelicalism.

But you're begging the question, and much of this is conspiracy theory that relies on psychoanalysis. For example, I can enter an Evangelical debate forum and start citing scholarly arguments. The audience will, 9 times out of 10, draw attention to the fact that the scholars I cite are "liberals" and will desist from addressing the arguments. As Niels Lemche said recently, the underlying rule seems to be: "do not read Wellhausen; read conservative books about Wellhausen. The moment a student with an evangelical background enters into a direct conversation with the enemy, he or she could be influenced by teh thinking of this enemy, something that can only be seen as a menace to the student's continues fundamentalist base. Although non-conservative literature may be cited, it is done within a conservative framework." (Conservative Scholarship on the Move)

== By the way, I asked you what your personal experience was regarding Bible college or seminary. Have you ever sat in on a class. Many seminarys will allow you to sit in to see what it is like. DTS does. I did not ask you what Bart Ehrman's experience was.

Yes I have, and I have been rejected from two seminaries because I could not, in all honestly, sign the required confession of faith. The reason I have not provided an answer to yoru request is because the moderator of this list sent an email to me (offlist apparently) asking that I do not provide such information: "Gentlemen, Please discontinue public discussion of your respective training and personal qualifications. While discussion of the relative merits of academic training or lack of it is acceptable, I will halt this thread if it continues in this vein. We are at the edge of -- if not beyond -- ad hominem."

I was simply respecting his request.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page